Found in my in-box

A faithful reader of the 'blog has forwarded me this e-mail:

Dear Dr. NameWithheldByRequest,

Fred Singer suggested that I send you the attached documents for your interest. If you would like to join Fred and many others in endorsing "A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming," we would be honored. You can do that simply by reply e-mail listing your name, title, and (for identification only) institutional affiliation, plus snail-mail address, phone number (for verification only), and a list of your degrees (subject, level, and granting institution). You will note that the "Open Letter" and "Call to Truth" are primarily from evangelicals and to evangelicals but that we have included endorsements by non-evangelicals with special relevant expertise. If you do endorse, please inform me whether I should list you among evangelicals or non-evangelicals. Thank you for your consideration.

In Christ,
Cal

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Social Ethics
Knox Theological Seminary, 5554 N. Federal Hwy., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308

Here are copies of the "Open letter," the ironically named "Call to truth," and the press release.

I've read these documents and they're full of the usual crap that gets rolled out for these: Humans are not causing warming; if they are, the warming will be small; and in any event, we can't do anything about this. Their arguments are, by and large, either normative value judgments, or are misleading or downright wrong scientific statements. [Note added in proof: also see the discussion here.]

From a strategic view, however, this type of campaign makes perfect sense. First, the recent emergence of an evangelical coalition in favor of action on climate change was one of the most significant events of the recent past. This represented a titanic shift in the political fault lines of this policy debate. Those opposed to action on climate change had to be terrified that they were on the brink of losing the entire policy debate. So this response makes perfect sense. Second, by arguing about science, they can drag the debate into a complete gridlock, as argued by Jon Miller. The report, with it's appearance of credibility and objectivity, leads the other side (those in favor of action) to leap to an enthusiastic defense of the reality of climate change - and the trap is sprung: the public tunes out (too boring), the media downgrade the story (too complex) and the politicians have the greatest excuse for doing nothing (let's wait until the science is clear).